The Deep State’s Total Control with Beijing as the Mother of Managers

 

A Status Review

The good news is that our Mother of Managers, RED China, continues to franchise its “One World, One Dream” surveillance and control solution based on its own Golden Shield initiative which produces “Happy Populations and Consumers” that our actuarily our LRUs for predictable profit margin percentages.

Even though Hillary missed her moment again, Diane and her driver, Nancy, the FBI, DOJ, State, NSA, and “Central” have been very helpful.

On the downside, NAFTA and the TPP were exposed, however, the drug trade, human trafficking, and organ harvesting ventures are thriving. Others should implement the “Planned Parenthood” disguise.

Also, the Village Idiots have still not figured out the pretext and goal of Arab Spring, and we really cut it close with The Thing from 1890’s, SSN # 042-68-4425, fake war on Libya and used the crisis to expand our pretext of the Global War on Terror into Europe to ultimately benefit RED China’s loan sharking and total control blueprint.

Syria was never on the Arab Spring list, but we also turned it into an opportunity for “Sustainable Development Wherever the UN Goes or Doesn’t Go When It Ideally Should” with less people as we did with Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia etc.

Trump like Reagan has interrupted the implementation of the blueprint, but we have some plans and eventually one will work to get the implementation back on track as we are so very close. The good news is Americans are getting dumber by the minute as well as being crushed with debt while thinking their “schooling” is giving them the skill sets for financial success while we have put all the roadblocks in place to prevent that from happening thanks to all our puppets in the U.S. Congress. Eventually they will succumb to the bait of free stuff and be totally dependent on us.

Eventually, with the success of RED China’s “One World, One Dream” solution, we will be able to overcome any resistance to our plan via its built in hostage taking and extortion. RED China’s partnership with NSA and “Central” has made good use of this in America. We must continue on this path and someday very soon all will wake up from The Dream and realize it is not their Dream but our Dream and they will not be able to do anything about it when it becomes their nightmare for our benefit.

Once again, election seasons are coming up again, and we must focus on placing more Emirs into our future areas of control so that we can remove all aspects of resistance. We must make Eichmann proud!

 

 

Editors Note: Farming, Mining, and Management of The Human Kind : The pretext of altruistic endeavors that just suddenly become predatory and parasitic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Blueprint for RED China’s One World One Dream:

How Arab governments use cyberspace laws to shut down activism

Critical Arab voices are being silenced on Twitter, and laws across the Middle East are created to further this cause.

by Yarno Ritzen
25 Jul 2019

In this series of articles, Al Jazeera examines how Twitter in the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring. 

Government talking points are being magnified through thousands of accounts during politically fraught times and silencing people on Twitter is only part of a large-scale effort by governments to stop human rights activists and opponents of the state from being heard. 

For human rights activists, journalists, dissidents and free speech campaigners, social media has long been a double-edged sword, representing both the positive and harmful aspects of open communication on the internet.

On the one hand, platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow activists the opportunity to spread their message, reaching an audience they could only dream of before the internet.

But on the other, the nature of open communication raises the risk of being followed, exposed or worse, as some governments increase their digital surveillance capabilities.

As a result, governments around the world are turning social media against their citizens.

China is the country where government control of the internet is by far the most egregious, but many countries in the Middle East are not far behind when it comes to using the internet against those who fight for a more open society, the annual Freedom of the Net report by Freedom House concluded.

Mohamad Najem, executive director at Beirut-based SMEX, a digital rights organisation focusing on issues related to freedom of expression, online privacy and safety, said social media movements had taken the Middle East by surprise and governments adapted relatively quickly, using social media against protesters and civil rights activists.

Over the last decade, SMEX has tracked how the use of social media platforms like Twitter, both by activists and governments, has changed.

“In 2011, access to these tools was still kind of new and governments underestimated them,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

Meet the activists fighting the Great Chinese Firewall

Social media allowed people in the Middle East to voice their concerns and question those in power.

During the Arab Spring, protesters were able to organise on social media, a tool that connected their realities with the rest of the world.

But governments were watching, too, and continue to closely monitor.

“Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“The online sphere we used to go to in the Middle East to express ourselves, to talk about politics, has started to close down slowly because of all these regulations,” he added.

“People were prosecuted, thrown in jail, or they had to flee the country.”

To show what laws Middle East governments have introduced in recent years, SMEX launched Cyrilla, a website listing all proposed and passed legislation aimed at curbing free speech.

The database, which offers texts in Arabic and English and covers the entire region, shows clearly how digital liberties in the Middle East have come under attack.

Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech.

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

It also lists several countries outside of the Middle East, including RussiaVietnam and Fiji.

“Across the Middle East, there is a large number of countries that have specifically instituted anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws that contain vague prohibitions on free speech,” Jillian York told Al Jazeera.

York is the Berlin-based director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which aims to protect civil liberties in the digital world.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Qatar; all these countries have instituted cybercrime laws and in most cases, the laws are vague – quite broad,” she said.

As an example, York cited Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism legislation from 2014, which criminalises defamation of the state and defines calling for atheist thought as a “terrorist” action.

Recently, prominent Norway-based pro-democracy activist Iyad el-Baghdadi, a Palestinian who has been outspoken in his criticism of Saudi authority figures, made a plea for his safety after US intelligence agency CIA found a credible threat to his life from authorities in the kingdom.

El-Baghdadi is behind The Arab Tyrant Manual, which focuses on global authoritarianism and the struggle for democratic liberties in the Arab region. He is also a fellow at Civita, a leading liberal think-tank in Norway, where he sought asylum after he was forced to leave his home in the United Arab Emirates in 2015.

İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي

@iyad_elbaghdadi

Spare a thought for all the dissidents, activists, journalists, and private citizens in the Arab world who get beaten, arrested, tortured, murdered without being passed tips and without being offered protection. They are the real heroes, and they are the real victims. Not me.

54 people are talking about this

But it is not just Saudi Arabia, as documented by organisations including Amnesty International and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights show.

Governments in the Middle East have started using platforms such as Twitter as amplifiers, using both automated bot accounts and well-known social media influencers to promote state-approved messaging, Najem said.

So, while activist voices are being drowned out by government-approved messages, sometimes amplified by fake Twitter accounts, campaigners also risk being jailed or are forced to leave the country because of newly implemented cybercrime or “antiterrorism” laws.

Last April, Saudi Arabia arrested three bloggers without giving any reasons for their arrest.

Similarly, the Turkish government cracked down hard last year on Twitter users who used the platform to voice their criticism of the Turkish military operation in northern Syria, claiming they were spreading “terrorist propaganda”.

The UAE, meanwhile, made it a criminal offence to show support for Qatar in the ongoing GCC crisis, claiming people who did so violated the federal decree on Combating Information Technology Crimes, possibly facing a jail term from three to 15 years, and a fine not less than 500,000 dirhams ($136,000).

According to both Najem and York, it is not just governments that are to blame for the crackdown on activists.

Part of the responsibility falls on social media companies for failing to address the issue of automated propaganda accounts and willingly helping governments in the region.

“One of the challenges with companies like Twitter – and most tech companies – is that they are based in Dubai. This is an issue because this is a country that has no respect for human rights, which means they have no respect for digital rights either,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“We have a problem that all these companies that are being used for free speech, such as Twitter, are based in the Gulf. These are countries that are not signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [giving everyone a right to freedom of opinion and expression] is not part of their mandate and freedom of expression is not something they care about.”

To add, York explained, the opaque deals these companies make with governments lead to more censorship, which is often hard to notice.

I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.

JILLIAN YORK, EFF

“Governments sort of wisened up and, due to a number of other factors, they began instead utilising these companies to do this censorship for them,” she said.

“This is a more palatable form of censorship for the people because they don’t notice what is missing. Instead of getting an error page when you visit a website like Twitter or Facebook, the content is just missing – it has disappeared,” she added.

“That has allowed these companies to continue to engage and grow in these markets while not being blamed for the censorship.”

York believes that these companies should be incredibly limited in how they regulate speech.

Another problem, she says, is that these companies consider the Middle East as a single monolithic entity and fail to look at the nuances between different countries.

“It’s very culturally ignorant to think that Lebanese people would want the same rules as the Saudis,” she said.

“To give a concrete example of this, search engine Microsoft Bing for years censored its results in the entire Middle East based on what Saudi Arabia asked them to censor.”

As a result, York explained, Bing instituted a blanket ban for certain keywords in the whole Middle East, so, for example, because Saudi Arabia wanted all mentions of the word “breast” removed from search results, people in Lebanon were not able to use Bing to search for “chicken breast”.

Meanwhile, accessing pornographic websites directly was still possible in Lebanon.

“So, I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.”

“These days they just do it, they don’t push back on it any more.”

Wael Abbas, an Egyptian human rights activist and blogger, used to document police brutality in Egypt.

“It’s quite clear from Abbas’s case that he was being attacked by trolls on Twitter that he alleges were government paid, but we don’t know that for sure,” York said.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy.”

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

“Nevertheless, he was attacked by government supporters on Twitter, he fought back and then his account was shut down by Twitter, probably because he used language that was in their rules considered hate speech.”

His account remains suspended.

“In Wael’s example, they should not have kicked him off of the platform for using harsh language,” York said.

These sustained efforts have instilled fear among activists, many of whom have largely moved away from public platforms like Twitter and Facebook to more closed systems.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy,” Najem said.

While the increased privacy of closed platforms provides some more safety for activists, reaching an audience as they did during the Arab Spring seems impossible.

Saudi women’s rights activist Souad al-Shammary looks at her Twitter account on her mobile phone. She is a liberal feminist who was jailed for her views [File: AP]

Article

GO RED China! GO RED China!

 

 

The Evidence Against Hillary Clinton Is Growing.

Editor’s Note – Benghazi update. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another Hillary Clinton private server.

Fresh evidence keeps sinking Hillary Clinton’s email defense

Hillary Clinton’s “there’s no evidence of that” line of defense over her email mess continues to crumble in the face of . . . new evidence.

For all her talk of how using a private email account for her work running the State Department was just fine, it’s now plain she left top-secret information vulnerable to hackers.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

More evidence is likely to come out. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another private server she used, a backup service with Connecticut-based Datto Inc.

And now the Associated Press has confirmed that her main server was the target of repeated cyberattacks from China, South Korea and Germany. And those came after she left office, when her team belatedly agreed to use some threat-monitoring software.

In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.

Add to this new details about Hillary’s emails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — emails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.

Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients.

“It is curious Secretary Clinton took so much of her advice from someone who had never been to Libya, professed no independent knowledge of the country and who the White House blocked her from hiring,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee trying to finally get to the full facts on the deadly Benghazi attack.

Curious? Hey, in Clintonworld, blending policy with pocket-lining is routine — national security be damned.

 

Brennan on CIA – Refutes Report Conclusions, Definitions

Editor’s Note – John Brennan, CIA director had to take to the interview stage thanks to the furor raised over the release of the Senate Select Committee’s one-sided report on the CIA as presented by Chairwoman Diane Feinstein.

It was unprecedented and very rare indeed, but that is the level to which this explosive story had risen and he had to defend his agency and its work force.

What is torture? Why weren’t people at the CIA interviewed? What was the state of our security when the enhanced interrogation techniques were used?

Was any information from these interrogations useful? What is the damage now that the report was made public by Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?

Is this what you think was used at Guantanamo or at 'black' sites?
Is this what you think was used at Guantanamo or at ‘black’ sites?

These questions and more faced John Brennan, and therefore all of America and our allies, even our enemies. Then we have to consider the state of morale in the CIA and the intelligence community overall?

In addition, what will foreign nations’ intelligence and law enforcement services think, and how will they work with us in the future? These were some of the other question he faced from the press.

Ask yourself, do you really understand how the “trade craft” of the CIA really works? Throw out your Hollywood images and James Bond.

Also consider that only documents were used to create the report – all sans context, frame of mind, and interviews.

No court or self-respecting prosecutor in the land would ever enter this type of so-called evidence into a trial for a jury to decide but Diane Feinstein demands that you, the real jury, consider only her and the Democrats take on the issue.

In our opinion, we watched and came to the conclusion that Brennan comported himself rather well.

He acknowledged failures and mistakes while refuting implausible conclusions and the damage they have caused.

For a good summary on these questions and the speech/interview, please read on:

CIA chief challenges Senate torture report

By KEN DILANIAN – Associated Press/Washington Times

WASHINGTON (AP) – CIA Director John Brennan threaded a rhetorical needle in an unprecedented televised news conference at CIA headquarters Thursday, acknowledging that agency officers did “abhorrent” things to detainees but defending the overall post-9/11 interrogation program for stopping attacks and saving lives.

At the heart of Brennan’s case is a finely tuned argument: that while today’s CIA takes no position on whether the brutal interrogation tactics themselves led detainees to cooperate, there is no doubt that detainees subjected to the treatment offered “useful and valuable” information afterward.

BrennanInterview

Speaking to reporters and on live television- something no one on the CIA public affairs staff could remember ever happening on the secretive agency’s Virginia campus -Brennan said it was “unknown and unknowable” whether the harsh treatment yielded crucial intelligence that could have been gained in any other way.

He declined to define the techniques as torture, as President Barack Obama and the Senate intelligence committee have done, refraining from even using the word in his 40 minutes of remarks and answers. Obama banned torture when he took office.

He also appeared to draw a distinction between interrogation methods, such as water boarding, that were approved by the Justice Department at the time, and those that were not, including “rectal feeding,” death threats and beatings. He did not discuss the techniques by name.

“I certainly agree that there were times when CIA officers exceeded the policy guidance that was given and the authorized techniques that were approved and determined to be lawful,” he said. “They went outside of the bounds. … I will leave to others to how they might want to label those activities. But for me, it was something that is certainly regrettable.”

But Brennan defended the overall detention of 119 detainees as having produced valuable intelligence that, among other things, helped the CIA find and kill al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

A 500-page Senate intelligence committee report released Tuesday exhaustively cites CIA records to dispute that contention.

The report points out that the CIA justified the torture – what the report called an extraordinary departure from American practices and values – as necessary to produce unique and otherwise unobtainable intelligence. Those are not terms Brennan used Thursday to describe the intelligence derived from the program.

The report makes clear that agency officials for years told the White House, the Justice Department and Congress that the techniques themselves had elicited crucial information that thwarted dangerous plots.

Yet the report argues that torture failed to produce intelligence that the CIA couldn’t have obtained, or didn’t already have, elsewhere.

Although the harshest interrogations were carried out in 2002 and 2003, the program continued until December 2007, Brennan acknowledged. All told, 39 detainees were subject to very harsh measures.

Former CIA Directors Haydeon, Tenet, Goss, and Morell
Former CIA Directors Haydon, Tenet, Goss, and Morell refute the report as well.

Former President George H. W. Bush, CIA director in 1976-77, supported the agency.

“I felt compelled to reiterate my confidence in the agency today, and to thank those throughout its ranks for their ongoing and vitally important work to keep America safe and secure,” Bush said in a statement.

Former CIA officials, including George Tenet, who signed off on the interrogations as director, have argued in recent days that the techniques themselves were effective and justified.

Brennan’s more nuanced position puts him in harmony with an anti-torture White House while attempting to mollify the many CIA officers involved in the program who still work for him.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the intelligence committee chairman whose staff wrote the report, conducted a live-tweeting point-by-point rebuttal of Brennan’s news conference, at one point saying that Brennan’s stance was inconsistent with the original justification for the brutal interrogations.

“EIT authority (was) based on vital, otherwise unavailable intel,” she tweeted during Brennan’s remarks. “Not ‘useful information.'”

At the CIA, Brennan spoke next to the stars engraved on a marble wall to memorialize fallen officers. He criticized the Senate investigation, saying, for example, it was “lamentable” that the committee interviewed no CIA personnel to ask, “What were you thinking?”

Seeking to put the controversy in context, Brennan stressed that the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was in “uncharted territory,” having been handed vast new authorities by a president determined to thwart the next al-Qaida attack.

“We were not prepared,” said Brennan, who was deputy CIA executive officer at the time. “We had little experience housing detainees, and precious few of our officers were trained interrogators.”

In starker terms than CIA officials have used previously, Brennan, a career CIA analyst, acknowledged mistakes when the agency took captured al-Qaida operatives to secret prisons and began using brutal methods in an effort to break them.

“In a limited number of cases, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent and rightly should be repudiated by all,” he said. “And we fell short when it came to holding some officers accountable for their mistakes.”

But he also said, “The overwhelming majority of officers involved in the program at CIA carried out their responsibilities faithfully. … They did what they were asked to do in the service of our nation.”

Brennan denied that the CIA intentionally misled lawmakers.

“We take exceptional pride in providing truth to power,” he said pointedly, “whether that power agrees with what we say or not and regardless of political party.”

He praised the CIA’s work to prevent terrorism on U.S. soil, and the fact that CIA officers were the first to fight and early to die in the Afghanistan war. The CIA, he said, “did a lot of things right” in a time when there were “no easy answers.”

Brennan said that while he personally believes brutal interrogations result in too much false information, he would not rule out that such tactics being used again.

“We are not contemplating at all getting back into the detention program using any of those EITs,” he said when asked whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” could again be employed. “So I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis.”

___

Associated Press writers Calvin Woodward and Nancy Benac contributed to this report.

Feinstein’s Acrimony for the CIA Revealed

By Denise Simon and Scott W. Winchell

On Tuesday, December 9, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Majority leader for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), stood on the Senate floor for almost an hour and delivered a chilling verbal summary of the $40 million dollar investigation into the CIA Torture Report.

She spoke in a measured and assertive tone naming names all the way through. My bet is she delivered this performance for the sake of setting the table to close Guantanamo immediately out of establishing sympathy for detained combatants.FeinsteinSpeechScreenCap

Further, Feinstein put every American in peril, wherever they travel internationally, or are part of the foreign service, or our very own troops.

She has aided and delivered comfort to the enemy as her 500 page summary report has been publicly published for all enemies to read. The summary report also explains sources, methods and locations.

What is worse, several countries friendly to America are formally exposed and will likely hesitate and filter cooperation with U.S. intelligence.

We cannot know the future damage, but the threat assessments have risen dramatically as all foreign U.S. military bases are presently on higher alert and some embassies are in fact closed for an undetermined period of time.

Feinstein denied all evidence that the CIA program saved lives, or stopped terror plots and led us to other terrorists in the global network. But how does this jive perhaps with the fact that over the weekend, Pakistani forces killed the man who was believed to be al-Qaeda’s top operational commander, Adnan el Shukrijumah — a terrorist who was identified thanks to the CIA’s interrogation of two senior al-Qaeda operatives.

A Pakistani man holds a match box with picture of Adnan Shukrijumah who is wanted in connection with possible terrorist threat attacks against the US, in Peshawar, 15 July 2006.  The US government has announced a 25 million USD reward for information leading to the capture of Shukrijumah in their Rewards for Justice Program. AFP PHOTO/ Tariq MAHMOOD
A Pakistani man holds a match box with picture of Adnan Shukrijumah  – AFP PHOTO/ Tariq MAHMOOD

The enhanced interrogation program was terminated several years ago, when in fact it began under the Clinton administration and several measures were passed to ensure they were never applied them again.

For Feinstein to say her only motivation was to ensure this never happened again, is misguided at best and violates OPSEC.

What is worse, the DOJ said they will not prosecute any participants of the program but the United Nations is saying otherwise. That places many contractors and CIA operatives in jeopardy of being bought up on charges under international law.

This matter is by far from over, as we have people in media that are outing names of countries that cooperated and they are posting names of CIA operatives that had a hand in the program.

Feinstein crossed the Rubicon and in the wake of destruction, damage, injury, or loss of life may still yet to be realized. Presently, the Taliban and al Qaeda factions are calling for an increase in attacks of the West already because of this speech and report.

We will never know exactly how many more, but it is certain that more people will be radicalized than she and others thought Guantanamo Bay lured into radicalization.

As a last note, this CIA Torture Report is highly partisan – no former or still active CIA operative were interviewed during this process nor was the top lawyer at CIA, John Rizzo interviewed. Rizzo formally asked to be interviewed and was denied and he then formally asked for a copy of the report and was denied.

If you think that George Soros did not have a hand in the Feinstein investigation, you need to think again. Feinstein, in her last act as Chairmen of the SSCI, had no support from the Republicans on her committee and it is clear she did this out of spite because of her well documented hatred for the CIA. Since that speech, many have responded, and most are none-to-pleased, especially our CIA and its former leadership.

The former deputy director of the CIA is ripping the torture report released by Democrats on Tuesday, calling it “deeply flawed.”

“Many of its main conclusions are simply not correct,” Mike Morell, who is a CBS News contributor, told “CBS Evening News.” “And much of the context of the times and much of the discussion that took place inside the executive branch and with the Congress about this program is not in this report.”

Former CIA Directors Haydeon, Tenet, Goss, and Morell
Former CIA Directors Hayden, Tenet, Goss, and Morell

In addition to Mike Morell, the Wall Street Journal posted a responses from his predecessors:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

Examining how the CIA handled these matters is an important subject of continuing relevance to a nation still at war. In no way would we claim that we did everything perfectly, especially in the emergency and often-chaotic circumstances we confronted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As in all wars, there were undoubtedly things in our program that should not have happened. When we learned of them, we reported such instances to the CIA inspector general or the Justice Department and sought to take corrective action.Guantanamo-Bay_KG4EM1

The country and the CIA would have benefited from a more balanced study of these programs and a corresponding set of recommendations. The committee’s report is not that study. It offers not a single recommendation.

Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.

What is wrong with the committee’s report? (Read the rest here.)

Jose Rodriguez, the agent who ran the rendition/interrogation program had his own response to Feinstein:

WASHINGTON – The Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program calls a damning Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation activities a “totally egregious falsehood.”

Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told WTOP in an exclusive interview, “For those of us who were there, who read the reporting coming out of our black sites and who acted upon that intelligence, the conclusions by the SSCI report that the program brought no value, and the CIA mislead the Congress is astounding.”

The committee, in a scathing, 600-page summary of a five-year, $40 million investigation into the now defunct Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program, says the agency of misled Congress about a program that essentially brought no value to U.S. efforts to track down the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The program included waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques that have been classified as torture.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture

The Senate Committee report cited several key findings:

  • The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.
  • The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.
  • The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.
  • The CIA program was far more brutal than the CIA represented to policymakers and the American public.

But Rodriguez says the value of the program was clear and convincing. He says the program produced connective intelligence that led U.S. authorities to the key players in al-Qaida’s hierarchy. (Read the rest here.)

This story will burn in the eyes and hearts of the professionals and troops for a long time and we are sad that a person who was often referred to as “the adult in the room” full of her fellow Democrats, Diane Feinstein’s career will be remembered for an act much more infantile and petulant because of her own ego couched as an act of Patriotism.

She has reopened wounds and poured salt on them for what gain for America?

At SUA, we have a real hard time worrying about the way non-citizens who wanted to kill us all and Feinstein along with many in America have forgotten that in the months and years following 9/11/01, we had to act under a “clear and present danger” none of us could fully know or predict.

Hindsight is usually 20/20, but in this case, it reverted to a myopic, personal, and political lens in a tunnel.

She would feel bad if the report caused harm…Somehow that just does not cut it Senator.

———-

Editor’s Note – The article was adapted from an initial blog post after yesterdays events. We have adjusted it and added to it as events have unfurled. As time goes by, updates may be added as new information and responses develop. For more information, please click here to download a PDF from the Open Society Policy Center.

The 500 page report can be downloaded here. In addition, the video of the speech can be viewed here on CSPAN.

DOJ Produces Legal Rationale of CIA Killing al-Awlaki

Editor’s Note – The killing of Anwar al Awlaki  and another US citizen, Samir Kahn by the CIA has raised questions of the legality of our government assassinating one of its citizens because he was a known terrorist operative/leader in 2011. Two questions arose.

The first was the legality of making that order, the second was whether or not it was legal for the CIA to carry out the deed. A third issue arises as well – if it was legal in the United States, was it legal in the land it was carried out in; Yemen?Drone-kills-Awlaki

Naturally, constitutional and international legal and diplomatic questions arose and many asked the Obama Administration for its legal explanation for coming to the conclusions they did and then relied upon when carrying out the assassination.

Congress demanded the rationale from Obama’s Department of Justice and just recently, the second of two documents were released finally. The first was released last year on the legality of the killing itself, and now the second provides the rationale for the CIA carrying out the order. Vice News provides us with the details below and the document can be read from a copy of the original.

You be the judge:

A Justice Department Memo Provides the CIA’s Legal Justification to Kill a US Citizen

By Jason Leopold – Vice News

“This white paper sets forth the legal basis upon which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could use lethal force in Yemen against a United States citizen who senior officials reasonably determined was a senior leader of al-Qaida or an associated force of al-Qaida.”

So begins a 22-page, heavily redacted, previously top-secret document titled “Legality of a Lethal Operation by the Central Intelligence Agency Against a US Citizen,” which provides the first detailed look at the legal rationale behind lethal operations conducted by the agency. The white paper [pdf below] was turned over to VICE News in response to a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department.

It’s one of two white papers the Justice Department prepared in 2011 after lawmakers demanded to know what the administration’s legal rationale was for targeting for death the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. The first white paper, released last year, addressed why the targeted killing by the US military of an American abroad was lawful. This second white paper addresses why it was lawful for the CIA to do so. Neither white paper identifies Awlaki by name.

Anwar al-Awlaki, left, in a 2010 video, and Samir Khan, shown in North Carolina in 2008.
Anwar al-Awlaki, left, in a 2010 video, and Samir Khan, shown in North Carolina in 2008.

The May 25, 2011 document is based on a 41-page Justice Department memo that lays out the government’s legal basis for targeting Awlaki without affording him his right to due process under the US Constitution. For years, the Obama administration was pressured by lawmakers to share the memo, but officials refused — and wouldn’t even confirm that such a memo existed.

One of the most controversial legal arguments advanced in the white paper is the justification for civilians at the CIA engaging in hostilities abroad. The 1942 Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Quirin, which is footnoted in the white paper, says that “by universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction… between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.

“[A]n enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property” is an example of a belligerent who is an “offender against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by a military tribunal.”

‘They clearly realize they needed to come up with their independent justification of why [the CIA] has public authority to kill.’

Because CIA personnel are not part of the armed forces when they engage in hostilities, they are deemed to be unlawful combatants. The white paper acknowledges this, but argues that the CIA officers who are unlawful combatants are not war criminals as long as they comply with the laws of war.

The government is “very concerned with the status of the CIA,” said international law expert Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of criminal law at the School of Oriental and Criminal Studies at the University of London. “There’s absolutely no question that if any of these CIA agents involved in Anwar al-Awlaki’s killing ever went on vacation in Yemen or ever went on vacation in a state that has universal jurisdiction over war crimes, they could be arrested and prosecuted for murder. They certainly have committed murder under the laws of other states. Whether they have committed murder under American domestic law is another question.”

The white paper outlines five possible legal authorities that might prohibit the CIA from using lethal force against a US citizen abroad: three statutes (the foreign murder statute, conspiracy to murder an individual outside the US, and the War Crimes Act) and two constitutional provisions (the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process).

It relies on the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and the relatively unknown legal doctrine known as the “public authority justification” to explain why the CIA’s actions are not unlawful, concluding that there is no law prohibiting the CIA from killing a US citizen in Yemen based on the facts of his particular case — redacted from the white paper — described by the CIA to the Justice Department.

Individuals typically use the public authority justification in criminal cases, arguing that the government authorized their actions. For example, a person wearing a wire for the FBI might be violating a state’s eavesdropping law. However, if the defendant successfully uses the public authority justification, he would not be found guilty even though he clearly violated the law. The white paper concedes that the public authority justification has rarely, if ever, been used to justify the government’s own acts.

%CODE%

Heller says he agrees with the legal analysis of the public authority justification, but only as it pertains to the military’s lethal actions abroad — not the CIA’s.

According to the white paper: “Given the assessment that an analogous operation carried out pursuant to the AUMF would fall within the scope of the public-authority justification, there is no reason to reach a different conclusion for a CIA operation.”

homepage_targeted_assassinations_1Heller told VICE News this is the “sum total” the white paper says about the CIA’s public authority justification, and that the government falls short of making its case. Still, he says, the white paper is significant “as it indicates [the Justice Department] knew they had to talk about the CIA specifically, and knew they couldn’t just lump in the military and the CIA together.

“They clearly realize they needed to come up with their independent justification of why [the CIA] has public authority to kill,” Heller continued. “Unfortunately, the memo doesn’t really tell us anything because of the way it’s been redacted. If the question is, Where does the CIA get their authority to use lethal force abroad?, given that’s the necessary condition for them to avoid this foreign murder statute, this memo doesn’t tell us anything. It could be there. But if it is, it’s behind a redaction.”

Although the white paper says that the CIA expressed to the Justice Department that it preferred to capture “this target,” the agency assessed that a capture operation in Yemen “would not be feasible at this time.”

“The CIA has further represented that this sort of operation would not be undertaken in a perfidious or treacherous manner,” the white paper says.

A footnote states that the white paper “addresses exclusively the use of force abroad, in the circumstances described herein. It does not address legal issues that the use of force in different circumstances or in any nation other than Yemen might present.”

Still, the logic and legal rationale could be applied to the same types of lethal operations against Americans in other countries who the government may determine are part of al Qaeda or an “associated force” of the terrorist organization.